Tag Archives: @rjblaskiewicz

Post navigation

Bob ‘n Weave Blaskiewiczselected from hisselect“Sexual Predator”syllabus he must cite from; during sessions like his series at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, where he surely must supply sorry examples of how to supposedly elicit a “Pavlov’s dog”style series of events from confused children; who’ve been told to “not talk to strangers,” and “never go anywhere with someone you don’t know,” when he Gabroni’s this gem and juice:
——————————————————————“He IS big pharma” [1]
——————————————————————
How quaint

Bob is unable to back-up his biasedtalking-headbrillnuance

But he hopes mightily that his brilliance of adding the nut menageriesymbolism of menutgerie:
——————————————————————“He uses the same legal loopholes available to drug companies … “[2]
——————————————————————
Basically, “The Skeptics™,” according to Bob, believe that every law they disagree with is a “legal loophole,” but every law they might not agree with, but which their opposition feels is a “legal loophole,” is a valid law to them

But I digress

Bob would have you believe that he thinks his readers are NOTsmarter than a fifth-grader; and perhaps that belief is well founded, because a lot of Bob’s regular followers may not really be:smarter than a 5tłh-grader”, based on his theory that if a child were instructed to never go somewhere with a stranger, Bob believes that children, like his readers, can be “suckered” into ignoring warnings, and instead, if they are told a “plausible story” like:
——————————————————————“Your parent needs your help and they want you to follow me”

“They have some candy for you”
——————————————————————
they will forego that which they have been told is the intelligent, correct choice, for the big, shiny, fruit of the stupid sticktree
——————————————————————
Now, let’s review Blatherskitewicz’s attempt at Tolstory:
——————————————————————“He IS big pharma”:“He uses the same legal loopholes available to drug companies … “
——————————————————————
A 5th-grader is smart enough to see through Bobby’spiss-poorPulitzer Prizephallicy

Bobbyexcretedend-runattempt around intelligent-design, is his word-salad salute to“Stupid is, as Stupid Does”

He tries to MisDisInform, by depositing that because Burzynski has to use the same, as he puts it, “legal loopholes” as BILLION Pharma, that this somehow translates into Burzynskibeing Big Pharma

Jeepers, creepers, this would be akin to me attempting to pull a Pol Pot over your Peepers, by trying to claim that just because Bobby Blatherskitewicz sits down and uses the same type of device; a toilet, to attempt to rid himself of what he is obviously “full of,” that this means he is smarter than a 5th-grader who uses the same device, when it is clear that even medical-grade cannabis couldn’t help Bobby Blatherskite be smarter than a 5th-grader
——————————————————————“He IS big pharma”: “He uses the same large poophole“, and even the largest roll of Charmin in the world wouldn’t help him
——————————————————————
Since Booby couldn’t name an actual Big pharmaceutical company to contrast Burzynski with, let’s take a look at one, shall we ?
——————————————————————2/7/2012, Monday, GlaxoSmithKline LLC(GSK) was fined $3 BILLION ($3,000,000,000 Billion) dollars, for actions which occurred from(4/1998 – 2007)

“may assume her tumor is growing”
——————————————————————
The issue with citing these 3 studies is that each then needs to be reviewed to determine if they have any relevance to the patientsBurzynski has treated in the phase II clinical trials:
——————————————————————[1] – 12/2009 – Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse in the treatment of gliomas
——————————————————————1. Has Burzynskitreated patients with gliomas, brain tumours, or recurrent glioblastoma ?
——————————————————————2. Has Burzynski’spatients been treated with combined chemo-irradiation with temozolomide which may induce in 20-30% ?
——————————————————————[2] – 5/2008 – Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas
——————————————————————1. Has Burzynskitreated patients with glioblastoma ?
——————————————————————2. Have any of Burzynski’spatients been treated with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy ?
——————————————————————3. so-called pseudoprogression can occur in up to 20% of patients
——————————————————————4. can explain about 1/2 of 20%
——————————————————————[3] – In support of this “phenomenon”, the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site whichposits:
——————————————————————“RT/TMZ is now widely practiced and the standard of care for appropriately selected patients, we are learning more about the consequences of RT/TMZ”

“One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)…”
——————————————————————
The problem is that this only applies to “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)”, and the article provides NO proof whatsoever, that any of Burzynski’s “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)” patients have taken “RT/TMZ”
——————————————————————
Additionally, the sitecites the reference as:

(“In press” refers to journal articles which have been accepted for publication, but have not yet been published)

However, the journal article in question was published 1/2010, so it has NOT been “in press” for over 3 years and 7 months [4]
——————————————————————GorskGeek stupidly suppositories:
——————————————————————“It’s very heartening to see a story like this in a major news outlet, and I must congratulate Ms. Szabo for her thorough deconstruction of the phenomenon that is Stanislaw Burzynski“
——————————————————————GorskGeek, just because a great portion of Liz Szabo’sUSA TODAYarticlequoted verbatim from The Skeptics™ play book, doesNOT mean she was anymore successful at “deconstructing” Burzynski [5], anymore than you have NOT
——————————————————————GorskGeek then regurgitates:
——————————————————————“Remember how I said that Bob Blaskiewicz will want your help?”

Gentlemen, I start your Insolence 😇
——————————————————————(1:30) [1]
——————————————————————
The “motto” of “The Amazing (Not so Much) Meeting” is “Fighting Fakers,” which is apropos, since I doubt that “Orac” the “Check my Facts” Hack of Dr. David H. Gorski, grasps the irony, that when I read some of his blog articles, you could easily switch his name with the name of some individual he is flogging, and the proverbial shoe fits, and:
——————————————————————(1:40)
——————————————————————“This is a guy who sometimes fools even, you know, physicians”
——————————————————————(I couldn’t have said it better, myself) 😊
——————————————————————(2:47)
——————————————————————
He states:

“About a half of it is about Burzynski“[4]
——————————————————————6:00
——————————————————————Gorski mentions that Burzynski noticed that there were higher levels of these chemicals in healthy people, than people with cancer
——————————————————————
Whereas, Burzynski is on record as having said [5]:

” . . . healthy people have abundance of these chemicals in bloodCancer patients have varied to none“

I did NOT know before now, that GorskGeek thinks that “none” is a “level” 😶
——————————————————————
He continues:

AS2.1 – which is a chemical called phenylacetic acid, which is a byproduct of metabolism that turns into phenylacetylglutamine by the liver

A10 – soluble is basically the same thing
It breaks down to PAG
——————————————————————WOW !

I thought it was: AS2 – 1 😊

They are “basically the same thing” ? 😳

What does Burzynski say ? [6]

Phenylacetylglutaminate (PG) and Phenylacetate (PN) are metabolites of Phenylbutyrate (PB) and are constituents of antineoplaston AS2-1

PG and PN are naturally occurring in human body as result of metabolism of phenylalanine in liver and kidneys

formulation of antineoplaston AS2-1 is 4:1 mixture of synthetic PN and PG

“And these are substances which were actually studied in the ’50’s and ’60’s and not found to be particularly, um, promising, but, he didn’t know that then”
——————————————————————GorskGeek has #FAILED miserably to prove that on his blogs [7] 😄
——————————————————————(8:00)
——————————————————————Gorski comments about Burzynski’s “animal testing,” “species specific” claims:

“There are ways of getting around that”
——————————————————————
But Gorski, again, has #FAILED miserably to prove it [8] 😅
——————————————————————(12:00)
——————————————————————Gorski makes lame excuses about the NCI phase II clinical trial [9] 😖
——————————————————————(12:50)
——————————————————————Gorski claims Burzynski was indicted for insurance fraud in the 1997 case 😱
——————————————————————GorskGeek, care to try and prove that one also ? [10] 😃
——————————————————————(14:25)
——————————————————————Gorski then states that out of 61 trials on clinicaltrials . gov, “most” are “closed or unknown”
——————————————————————GorskGeek #FAILED again 😁

“You listen to Burzynski’s lawyer; and, and I swear I don’t understand, like why Burzynski would let him, let his lawyer say stuff this damning in his own book, but he does”

“So, get a load of some of these quotes, referring to one of the clinical trials, he says:”

“It was a joke”

“. . . there could not be any possibility of meaningful data coming out of the so-called clinical trial, it was all an artifice, that, you know, designed so that they could continue giving the treatment“

“The FDA wanted all of his patients to be on an IND, so, that’s what we did”
——————————————————————Gorski, attorney Rick Jaffe is an American, living in America NOT the formerly communist Poland

He can say whatever he wants

GorskGeek is NOT a lawyer 😓

And there’s an excellent reason why

Nor is he schooled in the proper usage of the English language

FACT:

” . . . the so-called clinical trial . . .”

Anyhuman being with a modicum of intelligence about the English language, understands that the term “clinical trial” is singular, i.e. one

FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
——————————————————————Gorski continues his trend of #FAILURES when he mentions the additional types of treatments that Burzynski was offering, but he #FAILED to mention [12] 😂
——————————————————————” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials”
——————————————————————(18:20)
——————————————————————Gorski addresses the case of Tori Moreno
——————————————————————Kim Moreno states:

“We originally were at Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial and then went to City of Hope“

“We also sent her MRI’s to Dr. Fred Epstein in New York to be looked at”

Gorski suggests that 3 different opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno

You can read an interview with Tori’s mother [13]
——————————————————————(19:45)
——————————————————————Gorski goes on to mention Burzynski patients going to Texas Children’s Hospital with hypernatremia issues
——————————————————————Gorski, do you mean this ? [14]

GorskGeek makes excuses like “spontaneous remission”, but then provides no citation, reference, or link to a case of such a tumor having spontaneously exhibited remission [15]
——————————————————————(20:40)
——————————————————————Gorski states that antineoplastons are chemotherapy
——————————————————————No, Gorski, antineoplaston are:

“Game of Thrones Geek”
——————————————————————
I just knew I was right, GorskGeek [19]
——————————————————————(14:00)
——————————————————————
The only female panelist mentions “bureaucrats”, “wimps”, and “people without balls”
——————————————————————2 out of 3 ain’t bad

She describes the Bob and David show to a T
——————————————————————(15:00)
——————————————————————
The claim is made that a Burzynski physician appeared on the Burzynski Facebook page announcing results
——————————————————————(16:00)
——————————————————————Gorski #whines that the Texas Medical Board wasn’t successful in shutting Burzynski down because of “politics”
——————————————————————LAUGHABLE
——————————————————————(20:55)
——————————————————————Gorski gives his usual excuse:

“He’s not an oncologist”
——————————————————————GorskiGeek, that claim is as dead as apparently, quite a number of your brain cells [15]
——————————————————————(34:40)
——————————————————————
Audience members are given the opportunity to speak, and this is the garbage served up:
——————————————————————“Hi, this is Susan

Ah, don’t forget to mention that Wikipedia has been a major battlefield

We’ve had 23,000 views to the clinic’s page this last month, also rebutr . . .”
——————————————————————“Control the flow of information”
——————————————————————Gorski pipes up:

“He also stated quite frankly during the Google Hangout that nothing will ever change his mind”
——————————————————————Woo, Bob did NOT provide enough evidence that would cause me to “change my mind”
——————————————————————“So what’s the point of any further discourse?”
——————————————————————Woo, the point is, it gives you the opportunity to explain why you lied to The Guardian [2]
——————————————————————“His idea of “debate” is having critics post comments on his blog; whether that is to drive up page views or merely to seek attention we’ll never know”
——————————————————————Woo, who suggested leaving comments on my blog ?

Bob ? [3]

9/28/2013 Google+ Hangout
——————————————————————1:13:00
——————————————————————“Okay, I’ll look at that, and I will respond to it once I’ve taken a look at that, okay ?“

“Um, and I’ll respond on your web-site“

“Um, seems only fair“
——————————————————————1:14:00
——————————————————————2:09:00
——————————————————————“… and don’t worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you’ve run“
——————————————————————2:10:15
——————————————————————2:18:00
——————————————————————“Um, I will look at your web-site, and we will, uh, we, uh, you, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there“
——————————————————————2:19:00
——————————————————————“What none of us understands is his motivation”

“I have discussed this privately in e-mails with Bob B. and you, Guy”

“When asked about this during the session on Saturday all he said was that he wanted to correct what he perceives as misinformation from Burzynski critics on social media”
——————————————————————Woo, you’re obviously NOT from Texas

It’s like a whole ‘notherCountry

My motivation ?

I am a Texan and an American and I do NOT have any respect for individuals who lie about cancer treatment on social media

Verstehen ?

There’s a saying:

“Don’t mess with Texas”
——————————————————————“It has to go deeper than that”

“He didn’t wake up one day and out of the blue decide he was going to champion Burzynski”

“He has to have some connection, either personal or commercial”
——————————————————————Woo, you’re still wrong

Prove it
——————————————————————“The sheer amount of time and effort he’s pored into writing hundreds, if not thousands of comments on science blogs, his rabid attempts to edit Wikipedia and his own blog posts indicates he something invested”
——————————————————————Woo, why don’t you count the amount of comments I posted on “Orac’s” Respectful Insolence science blog and let everyone know the results ?
——————————————————————“He denied he works for Burzynski as he stated he doesn’t even live in Texas anymore, but that is irrelevant”

“I don’t believe Marc Stephens lived in Texas for the duration of time he represented the clinic”
——————————————————————Woo, who cares what you think about Marc Stephens ?

Prove it
——————————————————————“I wish he would just be honest and tell us why he has spent devoted so much of his time over the past year (almost) promoting and supporting Burzynski (and Merola, for that matter)”
——————————————————————Woo, where have I been “promoting and supporting” them ?

Everything on my blog is devoted to showing how “The Skeptics™” lie
——————————————————————“I was going to say it would be hard to go back to calling him an idiot after hearing him speak on Saturday, as he became humanized”
——————————————————————Woo, I have no problem calling you an “idiot” after you lied about me [2]
——————————————————————“His folksy “y’all” and his laughter made him a real person”

“He was no longer just words on a screen, but a living, breathing human being”

“However after seeing the Tweets he posted immediately following the Hangout, where he reverted to his juvenile insults, his name-calling, his inability to write a coherent sentence and his out-and-out lack of respect for people like you and Dr. Gorksi has made me reevaluate my stance”
——————————————————————Woo, please cite one of these “supposed”Tweetsyou have a problem with

Surely you did NOT think I was giving Bobcarte blanche to continue on Twitter without proving his case ?
——————————————————————“He simply deserves to be ignored”

“He has a serious personality disorder and doesn’t merit any of our attention ever again”
——————————————————————Woo, my personality is serious enough NOT to lie about people to The Guardian

“He kind of admitted it when he said that he’d be persuaded by the FDA not having granted phase 3 approval; defining your rejection criteria according to some test whose outcome is already know is one of the techniques used by homeopaths”
——————————————————————Guy, which homeopathic “remedy” has received Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) and FDA Phase 3 approval ?
——————————————————————“You do not interpret this thing as I would like, therefore you are denying this thing happened, therefore you lie, is another,”
——————————————————————Guy, what massive cognitive dissonance dreamworld are you living in ?
======================================Guy Chapman – 10/2/2013 – 12:28 am

“Actually, we know what he is”

“A troll”

“Why did we let ourselves get sucked in?”
——————————————————————“Troll” is an excusecowards use to try and label someone in order to claim that they should NOT be put in a position to do something they agreed to
======================================IamBreastCancer – 10/2/2013 – 12:27 am

“Excellent summary, Guy”

“I agree with WooFighter that his motivation is suspect, but there are some desperately lonely attention-seeking people out there who will grasp onto any controversial issue just to get “in the game.””

“As a cancer patient myself, I was struck by the fact that he could yammer on for almost 2-1/2 hours without showing a shred of concern or compassion for cancer patients or legitimate cancer treatment questions”

“His behavior before, during and since the debate clearly shows he absolutely has no regard for real facts or evidence”

“I’m thankful that he’s unable to write coherently, as it cripples his capacity for causing harm to cancer patients”

“Unlike so many other charlatans out there, I don’t think he represents much of a threat to patient safety, just a lot of noise and bandwidth waste”

“His 15 minutes of fame needs to end”
——————————————————————Quidama, I’m sorry you have cancer, but it sounds to me like you seriously need a “reality check”: [4]
——————————————————————A. Tried to “control the conversation”1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————B.Interrupted the other individual the most:1. 30+ – Bob Blaskiewicz interrupted DJT
2. (20+ back at ya) – DJT interrupted BB
——————————————————————C.Asked the most questions:1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————D.Most speaking time:1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————E.Most words:1. 13,933 – Bob Blaskiewicz
2. 8,847 – DJT
——————————————————————F.Most characters:1. 66,123 – Bob Blaskiewicz
2. 43,245 – DJT
——————————————————————G.Acted as if they were teaching a class, and dictating what your possible responses were, implying that they did NOT consider this to be a “debate” where the participants were free to choose their own responses:1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————H.Proved they do NOT know how to debate1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————I.Proved they do NOT have manners1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————J.Must have thought they were on the Morton Downey Jr. talk show (or do you prefer Jerry Springer ?)1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————K.Controlled themself best:
1.2. DJT
——————————————————————L.Did NOT need help from any pro-position pundits
1.2. DJT
——————————————————————“Thanks for all you do!”
——————————————————————You’re welcome

“The Skeptics™” Mark McAndrew#whining on “The Telegraph” while citingGuy Chapman’sblog, claims I shouldn’t be citing my own blog, but he does NOT have any problem whatsoever with his Skeptic guy friend, Guy Chapman, citingHIS own blog

HYPOCRITE

This is why I’m Hipocritical of “The Skeptics™”

Hipocritical
Hippocrates
Hypocrite
critical
critic

Mark McAndrew citing Guy Chapman’s (blahg) blog

Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog TWICE

Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog TWICE

Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog

Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog

Note below, how the moderator leaves my comment as “This comment is awaiting moderation. Show comment”, so that the reader has to select“Show comment” in order to see my reply

Guy Chapman

All of homeopathy, or just the imponderables?
——————————————————————Didymus Judas Thomas

Mr. Chapman, I’m quite surprised that you’ve been mum about this particular Homeopathy publication on PubMed?

Stimulation of natural killer cells for homoeopathic complexes: An in vitro and in vivo pilot study in advanced cancer patients.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23408699/Guy Chapman does NOT want to acknowledge that this publication exists

Note below, Mark McAndrew’s comment which gets deleted

Mark McAndrew, you must be the Troll under the bridge that people have to cross to get to the party

#8 – Mark McAndrew – October 22, 2013

Thanks Orac, great takedown

Perhaps you should ask the Telegraph for right of reply?

As a real oncologist (whose entire profession is under attack by these pricks) you have the moral authority to demand it

Comments were fun tho

Although debating the spectacular embarrassment that is Sandra Courtney was a bit like going ten rounds with a propped-up corpse

“It it it doesn’t strike me as necessarily a “Free Speech” issue, you know”
——————————————————————DJT – Well to me it is when Forbes removes all my comments, in response to Skeptics some, and I showed this from screen-shots [2]

You know, stuff like that
——————————————————————BB – “Was it down-voted ?”
——————————————————————DJT – Oh no
——————————————————————BB – “No”
——————————————————————DJT – It wasn’t down-voted
——————————————————————BB – “Mhmm”======================================Bob, what are you talking about ?

YOU were the 1st person to comment on that article

WHERE is there a “down-vote” option on #Forbes ?======================================DJT – They, I mean I’ve got screen-shots of where my comments were there, between other people’s comments, and uh, and they just decided to remove all my comments, and I blogged specifically about, you know, what they did and, uh, Gorski’s good friend and pal who authored that particular article
——————————————————————BB – “Mhmm”
——————————————————————DJT – SoI, I like how The Skeptics run things, you know [3]
——————————————————————1:25:14
======================================Bob, isn’t it nice how your picture is the 3rd one, below ?
======================================
PHARMA & HEALTHCARE | 4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,516 viewsA Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics106 comments, 4 called-out
Comment Now

“The Skeptics™” obviously did NOT learn from their #epic Skeptic #fail #failure there

I wonder if “The Skeptics™” have taken a peek at #Forbes and seen that some of my comments which were removed, now have reappeared, as media sources find out how “The Skeptics™” operate ?

I also see that “The Skeptics™”fave oncologist has commented on the article and one of “The Skeptics™” has tried to get their Lord and Master, The King of “The Skeptics™”#epicSkeptic#fail#failureDisaster to join him in the pollution of another media source [3]

Mark McAndrew

Three people here have posted the link to Doctor Gorski’s response to this actual article

About as on-topic as it gets – and not their own work either

You, on the other hand, have spammed at least 12 people here with the exact same link to the “Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog” (sic), which – surprise – has absolutely nothing to do with this article

Is 12 less or more than 3, Diddy?

Who’s the liar?

Mr. McAndrew, did you get screenshots?

I only counted 10, which was provided because it backs up my comments

As far as who has posted your fave oncologist’s link

4 – Mark McAndrew2 – lilady, R.N.1 – Margaret Hardman1 – David Doran

Do I really need to list the # of times Guy Chapman has cited his own blog?

And you were on your fave oncologist’s blog trying to get him to post here

Difference without a distinction

Guten Tag 🙂

DJT, USA

Mr. McAndrew, why don’t you ask your fave oncologist to reveal who I am so that I can prove him wrong?

Then you can try and prove that I work for the clinic after I prove him wrong

Problem solved

See how easy that is?

And you don’t end up looking like the
proverbial “village idiot” like one of “The Skeptics” who posts things without “fact-checking” them

I enjoy taking screenshots of my posts

Do you?

Sayanora

DJT, USA

Guy Chapman

All of homeopathy, or just the imponderables?
——————————————————————Didymus Judas Thomas

Mr. Chapman, I’m quite surprised that you’ve been mum about this particular Homeopathy publication on PubMed?

——————————————————————DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
——————————————————————BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
======================================(0:12:00)
——————————————————————DJT – Well a lot of the time I’m making fun of y’all’s favorite oncologist, the way he words his blogs, and uhmmm I cite specifically from the FDA, from from the National Cancer Institute, from these other scientific sources, from scientific publications

I give people specific information so they can fact-check me, unlike a lot of The Skeptics who just go out there and say things and publish things on social media, they provide no back-up for their uhhh sayings
——————————————————————(0:13:00)
——————————————————————DJT – And so I’ve tried to add those things and allow people to search, on specific things like publications, or what I posted about The Lancet, or specifically about The Skeptics, or specifically about the oncologist
——————————————————————

——————————————————————DJT – Well the thing is, when you accepted this hangout, I published my newest blog article and I specifically listed all the information I had critiqued from you previously including Amelia, and I posted the specific Twitter responses by BurzynskiMovie; which is probably Eric, to your issues with Amelia, and he disagrees with what the oncologist posted, and so I pretty much let his Twitter responses stand to what the oncologist said
——————————————————————0:14:24
======================================

If it's true that #burzynski and his adman Merola have insinuated that parents are to blame for Amelia's death that's utterly disgusting.

======================================DJT – Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panorama’s report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynski’s scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so [4]

DJT – Oh yeah he says he’s read everything but uh you know he claims that he’s uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynski’s personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I don’t know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons

And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that you’ve read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didn’t know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when that’s specifically in the publications ?

To me that tells me that you do not know how antineoplastons work be because you just admitted you don’t know which genes Burzynski talks about

I mean that’s just funny as heck to me that he would say that [5]
——————————————————————0:25:07
——————————————————————DJT – But the other issue is that Skeptics have posted on there that he could not get that accelerated approval until he had published a phase 2 trial and that is exactly not the case because other drugs have been given accelerated approval before their results were published in phase 2 clinical trial publications, cuz, so that question remains as well [6]======================================“Temodar and Avastin both had proper, completed, and published phase II trials before approval”======================================

And so when I critique an oncologist or any other Skeptic I always provide source material so people can always fact-check me and I specifically said that people should fact-check everything ummm that the oncologist should say because he has, I’ve proven him to be frequently incorrect about his information and misleading
——————————————————————

——————————————————————0:44:00
——————————————————————DJT – The thing that’s funny is that people can say, ohhh Burzynski charges a lot, but the fact is, so does chemo, radiation, and some of these newspaper articles that have been published, and specifically in the movie, Burzynski 2, one of the people mentioned how much someone was paying for standard treatment

And I noticed our favorite oncologist didn’t comment about that in his movie review [7]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————1:11:04
——————————————————————BB – “There’s something that that we don’t know, you’re coming, honestly we didn’t know what to expect when we talked to you”

“We, were looking at the design, of your web-site and wondering whether or not we would be able to get a a coherent sentence out of you, because the web-site is disorganized, uh”

“Um, at at at at least it’s the organization is not apparent to the readers“

“Um, and um according to”
——————————————————————DJT
That’s like, that’s like saying that Gorski’s web-site is disorganized, his blog is like anti vaccine one day, Burzynski the next, blah blah blah
——————————————————————BB – “No, that is tied together”
——————————————————————1:12:00
——————————————————————BB – “But let me, we know that that the the, the central concern is Burzynski“======================================
This is so Hilarious

Bob, why don’t you give a detailed explanation of how my blog with all its different search functions, is more “disorganized” than yours, and how about an in-depth data-analysis of Gorski’s “Respectful Insolence” blog, listing the # of Burzynski articles versus other articles

Oh

By the way, if you have NOT yet figured it out, my entire blog is Burzynski related======================================DJT – Well I think that people who really believe in “Free Speech,” and when it’s done rationally, I mean, Gorski would never, really respond to any of my questions, so I
——————————————————————BB – “Did he, did he leave them up ?”

“Did he leave them up ?”
——————————————————————DJT – Well I know that he specifically removed a review I did uh of his review of Burzynski I on his web, on his blog

But he’s pretty much left a lot of my comments up that I’ve seen

Uh, but he never really responded to my questions about, what he based his beliefs upon
——————————————————————1:27:00
——————————————————————BB – “Right, um, do you think that he is required to answer you ?”
——————————————————————DJT – Well I would think, if you’re going to base your position on a certain thing, and then you can’t back it up with scientific literature, uh, you should answer, maybe not specifically to me, but answer the question

Answer to your readers [8]
——————————————————————BB – “Right”
——————————————————————DJT – You know, I can tell his readers come on my blog because it shows that they come on my blog
——————————————————————

——————————————————————1:39:00
——————————————————————BB – “Uh, what’s next for you”
——————————————————————DJT – Well I’ll just keep reviewing the, any inaccurate statements I see posted

You know, it depends on if it’s Gorski, you know

Gorski’s gone on there and posted inaccurate stuff, and I call him out, you know he’s basically said on his blog, you know, if I do something inaccurate, you know, I’ll ‘fess up to it
============================================================================6/3/2013 – “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”======================================

Well, I’ve pointed out where he’s done that and said “Hey, you said you were gonna ‘fess up to it”

If I said on my blog that I was going to ‘fess up to doing something wrong, and you caught me, well, then I should, come out and say, “Okay, you got me”

But Gorski won’t even do that, you know, he just continues to go on down the road, as if
——————————————————————

——————————————————————1:56:02
——————————————————————DJT – Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorskiwould have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynski should publish
——————————————————————BB – “Oh I, I I I certainly don’t think that he would put a lot of stock in it, but I, I, I know Dave Gorski enough, he wants this to work”

“He has patients who are dying, you know”

“And if if if let’s say that that Burzynski could get ah his gene-targeted therapy to work on breast cancer patients in in a reliable way, that would be, such a help to these people, that that Gorski’s trying to help”
——————————————————————1:57:10
——————————————————————BB – “Um, yea, it doesn’t matter now whether or not Burz, whether or not Gorski agrees with how Burzynski publishes”======================================
This is Laughable

Nowhere have I seen any indication from Gorski of a positive nature towards Burzynski [9]======================================DJT – Like I said before

Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, “Well, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, it’s not phase 3, so it doesn’t really prove it”
——————————————————————1:58:04
——————————————————————DJT – So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
——————————————————————BB – “But he is a, the thing is, the thing is, you thing you have to understand is Gorski, Gorski is a genuine expert, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies“

I mean, he has a”
——————————————————————DJT – Well,
——————————————————————BB – “He, He’s able to convince people, he’s able to convince people, on the strength of his record, to give him money to carry out research”

People who know what they’re talking about”

To give him money to carry out his research”

Right ?”
——————————————————————DJT – This is, this is a guy who must phone it in because, he went in there and posted the old Josephine Jones response that, you know, no drugs had been approved by the FDA without their final phase 2 publication 1st being published, which was not a factual statement, and you’ve made the same statement

So I, I’m thinking that Gorski just bought her statement and took it and ran with it, and before he fact-checked it, and what, what happened, it was wrong
——————————————————————1:59:00
——————————————————————DJT – I mean, Gorski needs to stop phoning stuff in, and check his sources before he posts stuff, because I’ve found many cases where, he hasn’t seemed to do that, and that’s why I question him
——————————————————————

——————————————————————DJT – He’s done more than the case studies

He’s specifically given uh, almost all the information om an oncologist would want

DJT – I mean, I love Gorski, but he comes up with these stupid excuses like, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist”
——————————————————————2:01:00
——————————————————————DJT – Well, Gorski doesn’t go go in there and look at his other, his phase 2 clinical trial publications, as far as the preliminary reports, and look at the co-authors, and see if any of those guys are oncologists, and that they’re working with Gorski, I mean they’re working with Burzynski

I find that ridiculous
——————————————————————
Uh, Guy Chapman, “It’s a blog, not a peer-reviewed publication”
——————————————————————BB – “Um, so, it it is kind of, slightly disingenuous to hold uh Gorski to the same . . standard that you would, it on his blog“

“I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things”======================================PROVE IT [10]======================================2:03:03
——————————————————————DJT – I mean, Gorski doesn’t want to deal with the issues

Hey, I’ve said it to Gorski

He liked to back his stuff up on the Mayo study, yet he wouldn’t, he wouldn’t uh debate about the Mayo study

He likes to say, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist,” but he won’t, say Hey, look at the publications, are any of the guys on the publications oncologists ?

We know that Gorski, we know that Burzynski works with oncologists in his practice

So, just because Burzynski himself is not an an oncologist, does not necessarily mean anything

Do we need to go out, onto PubMed, and, and review every particular person that’s published something about cancer and see if they’re all oncologists ?

Seriously
——————————————————————2:04:11
——————————————————————DJT – I mean, Gorski will just
——————————————————————BB – “Yeah, but they”
——————————————————————DJT – post a lot of stuff without backing it up
——————————————————————

——————————————————————2:16:09
——————————————————————DJT – What I defend, is that, y’all post stuff, a lot of Skeptics post stuff, including Gorski, and they do not back it up, with references, citations, or links

Gorski will just post stuff, like he did about saying, you know, the FDA would not approve, uh, accelerated approval, without a final phase 2 clinical trial being published, which was an incorrect statement, he did not provide any link
——————————————————————BB – “Even if it’s true or false you, honestly though”
——————————————————————DJT – We know it’s false
——————————————————————BB – “Even if it’s true or false, in in that particular instance, you know, eh let’s just say that you’re right”

Gorski gets that point completely wrong”

It has no bearing on whether or not, ANP works”
——————————————————————

“And if, if if he saw that we were going to ultimately be circling around our same arguments again and again; kind of like we’ve done here, um, he uh, you, he doesn’t have time for that, I don’t think”
——————————————————————2:19:00
——————————————————————BB – “I mean”
——————————————————————DJT – Hey, he has time to post about, “Hey, uh, Burzynski got a Catholic award from somebody,” which, has nothing to do with antineoplastons, whatsoever